Global HR 2010 Transformation - ADP · Global HR 2010 Transformation ... What do you think we chose for ADP, ... assessment/performance appraisal, which, although

Global HR 2010Transformation

An ongoing journey

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP

table of contents

introduction ............................................................................ 4

about the survey...................................................................... 5

executive summary.................................................................. 6

research findings ..................................................................... 8

HR transformation status .................................................. 8

HR transformation outcomes .......................................... 12

outsourcing and shared services ..................................... 18

HR management practices .............................................. 28

about the survey participants ................................................ 30

about the research sponsors .................................................. 32


introduction 4

about the survey 5

executive summary 6

research findings 8

HR transformation status 8

HR transformation outcomes 12

outsourcing and shared services 18

HR management practices 28

about the survey participants 30

about the research sponsors 32

contents

[3]


introduction

[4]

one glass, two ways to see it

There are many ways to look at things, but a situation can usually be analysed by viewing it

from one of two angles: the glass is half full or it’s half empty.

In other words, look on the bright side of the story or let your less optimistic side take

control.

In fact the real choice is between the intent to get better at something or just maintain a

situation as is. What do you think we chose for ADP, a company that has been in business

for over 60 years? What could have led us to support the Global HR Transformation Report

for so many years, if not the will to understand where room for improvement exists?

What does this year’s report tell us? First of all, things are heading in the right direction. No

revolution here but a movement that has been steadily gathering momentum. Companies

around the world that embarked on HR Transformation years ago now reap the rewards of

their efforts. Regional variances still exist but those of you who have been reading the

report for several years will find concepts that were previously unfamiliar are now

conventional wisdom.

So, is HR Transformation over? It would be foolish to think so. There are in fact many

aspects yet to be examined; ideas and actions to be carefully considered that could lead to

fantastic opportunities. I am confident the HR Transformation journey is far from over.

More than ever, companies have to deal with uncertainty and new forms of competition,

and I invite you to listen carefully to how other HR professionals identify new challenges

and bring innovations. Any component of a business has the potential to play a significant

role in the changes that must be made for a company not just to survive, but to thrive.

HR plays an important role in reaching this goal. It is in our interest, as solution providers

and HR professionals, to strive to move forward together toward the goal of making HR

more agile. We may then accurately assess the resources needed to manage change, deal

with cultural differences, and define the appropriate breakout of processes to manage at

the local, regional and global levels. These are but a few examples of how to solve the

equation.

This is how HR and, more specifically HR Transformation, should be viewed: a sophisticated

equation. No one said it would be easy to figure out, nor that its components would remain

the same, but mathematics is all about defining new possibilities and transforming them

into real opportunities.

New challenges lie ahead. It is up to us to leverage this report to find innovative ways to

meet them.

I wish you a rewarding read,

Doug Cummings

Senior Vice President, Global MNC Sales

ADP Employer Services


about the survey

[5]

Our survey, now in its seventh year, examines trends in human resources (HR)

transformation practices (which we define as any concerted effort to change and

improve HR operations, whether through outsourcing, shared services, internal

reengineering, or a combination of these strategies) in organisations around the

globe. The 2010 report offers a view of market trends and changes in HR

transformation, as well as a perspective on future plans.

In addition to discussing transformation status and strategy, our report addresses:

• Reasons organisations transform, and the barriers that limit their transformation

• Transformation timing, cost and satisfaction

• Engagement of external resources and experience

• Current and future transformation scope

• HR outsourcing and shared services strategy, budget and provider selection

The survey received responses from 225 executives around the globe in varying

stages of HR transformation. For a full breakdown of respondent demographics,

please visit the About the Survey Participants section of the report.

executive summary

Conducted by SharedXpertise in association with ADP [6]

HR transformation continues to take longer than anticipated.

Organisations in all regions take slightly longer to transform

than they originally anticipate, a finding that has been

consistent throughout the seven years of our research.

On average, HR leaders say HR transformation requires two to

three years; more than a quarter of organisations take more

than four years to transform HR. The top reasons

transformation is delayed are: management/leadership/

organisational changes impacted transformation progress;

and, timing and transformation is/was more complex than

expected.

And continues to generate less in savings than anticipated. At

the same time, organisations often miss their transformation

savings targets by a slim margin: whilst 62% of all respondents

anticipate savings of 6% – 25%, 57% actually achieve those

savings; another 14% anticipate the lowest level of savings

(less than 5% savings), but 20% say they actually achieve

savings in that range. Respondents in EMEA are more

aggressive than those in other regions in both their cost

savings expectations and results.

Organisations achieve the best transformation results in

organisational management areas. Survey respondents say

they perform best in aligning the organisation around

common objectives (79% of respondents say they exceed or

meet expectations in this area) and responding to

organisational changes (73% of all respondents exceed or

meet expectations). Respondents rate themselves worst at

leveraging HR transformation to free internal HR staff to focus

on strategic issues (46% say the fall below expectations in this

area) and benefiting from a new technology to empower line

management (42% say they fall below expectations in this

area).

Organisations do a good job of matching areas of importance

to performance. Generally, organisations are performing best

in the areas that they deem important, with the single

exception being the objective of freeing internal HR staff to

focus on strategic issues, which has the lowest reported

performance of all key performance areas.

HR transformation hurdles are becoming entrenched. Across

all seven years we’ve been conducting this research, the main

hurdles to HR transformation have remained unchanged, with

skills of existing HR staff at the top of the list every year.

Other top hurdles continue to include underestimation of

resources needed (52%), lack of adequate technology (41%),

and internal bureaucracy (40%).

HR outsourcing appears to be declining. Across the past three

years, the proportion of respondents who say they are

currently outsourcing or considering outsourcing HR

processes has slowly declined, from 65% in 2008 to 59% in

2009, and 54% in 2010.

Transformation is on the rise again. After a dip in 2009, HR

transformation appears to be on the rise again with 85% of all

respondents saying they are considering, in the process of, or

finished with HR transformation. In fact, although the recent

economic recession does appear to have had some impact on

HR transformation activity (many indicators were down in

2009 over 2008) there are signs of increased transformation

activity improvement in 2010 (though generally not back to

2008 levels):

• Transformation efforts overall were down in 2009,

reversing a years-long trend of growth, but on the rise

again in 2010.

• The proportion of respondents who say they are not

transforming due to cost pressures increased

significantly from 2008 to 2009,but declined from 2009

to 2010.

• Internal reengineering (versus engaging outsourcing,

shared services or some kind of hybrid approach) was up

significantly in 2009 over 2008, but it stayed virtually the

same in 2010.

Regional shifts in HR transformation may be appearing on the

horizon. On a regional basis, organisations in the Americas are

slightly more likely than their counterparts in other regions to

be engaged in HR transformation, but longitudinal research

indicates there may be changes. Our results show an increase

in HR transformation activity in Europe/Middle East/Africa

(EMEA) (75% transforming in 2008 versus 87% in 2010), and a

decline in activity in Asia Pacific (93% transforming in 2008

versus 81% in 2010), whilst the Americas remain fairly steady

at 89%.

Transformation approaches vary by region. Americas-based

organisations are most likely to employ a hybrid approach,

Asia Pacific oranisations focus on internal reengineering, and

EMEA organisations are the most varied with nearly equal

portions engaging hybrid, internal reengineering and shared

services approaches.

Top reasons organisations engage in HR transformation also

vary by region. In a departure from prior years, our 2010

research indicates different top reasons for transformation by

region:

• Americas: to align the organisation on common

objectives and to free internal HR staff to focus on

strategic issues (both selected by 56% of respondents)

• Asia Pacific: to add and/or improve service for line

management and employees or to respond to

organisational changes (both are selected by 65% of

respondents)

• EMEA: to reduce/better manage costs (62% of

respondents)

summary of 2010 findings


executive summary

[7]

Even with changes across time, HR outsourcing continues to

be focused on transactional activities. Organisations in all

regions are most likely to outsource/consider outsourcing

payroll, and least likely to outsource/consider outsourcing the

entire HR function.

With HR outsourcing as a whole down, few individual

processes experience an increase in outsourcing between

2009 and 2010. The highest increase in outsourcing is in

assessment/performance appraisal, which, although

uncommon, rose from 19% to 26% between 2009 and 2010.

Payroll, the most commonly outsourced HR process, also saw

an increase, from 80% in 2009 to 84% in 2010.

Most buyers develop their own processes for identifying and

selecting their provider(s). Nearly three quarters of all

respondents say they develop and/or use their own process

to identify and select their provider(s), down from a high of

87% in 2009, but nearly equally to 2008’s 70%. 2010 saw a

decline in the use of consultants or sourcing advisors, with

36% of respondents saying they engage a consultant or

sourcing advisor versus 51% in 2009. The issuing of requests

for information (RFIs) and requests for proposals (RFPs) is also

down.

The top four provider selection criteria remain ever constant.

The top four provider selection criteria remain unchanged

over the previous four years, although they regularly change

positions. In 2010, the top provider selection criterion is

proven ability to meet service levels, followed by functional

coverage and expertise, then price followed by multi-country

capabilities. There are limited differences in the top criteria

amongst the different regions.

Organisations most often budget less than US$1M annually

for HR outsourcing. The highest percentage of respondents

(41%) budget less than US$1M annually for HR outsourcing;

another 30% budget US$1M – US$10M, and the remaining

29% budget more than US$10M. Analysis of year-over-year

HR outsourcing budgets indicates growth at both ends of the

budget scale, with an expanding proportion budgeting either

less than US$1M or more than US$11M.

Although HR outsourcing appears to be declining,

respondents say budgets are rising. In spite of the fact that a

declining percentage of respondents say they are currently

outsourcing or considering doing so, the percentage of

respondents who say their HR budgets are increasing is up:

48% of respondents say they anticipate their HR outsourcing

budgets to increase over the next three years versus 42% in

2009 (although not up to the 2008 level of 55%). Most often,

organisations say they expect budgets to increase by 10% –

24% (20% of all respondents); 17% say they anticipate an

increase of less than 10%.

The use of shared services for some transactional services

remains common. Just about two-thirds of all respondents say

they manage one or more HR process(es) through a shared

services model. As with outsourcing, organisations are more

likely to manage transactional processes – such as payroll and

HR information systems (HRIS) – in a shared services

environment than they are strategic processes. Respondents

from the Americas are more likely than are their counterparts

in other regions to manage at least one HR process through a

shared services model (71% of Americas respondents versus

56% of Asia Pacific respondents and 63% of EMEA

respondents).

HR functional management may be becoming increasingly

global. The HR function is most often centralised at a global

level, with 42% of all respondents selecting that option,

versus domestic and regional centralisation, each selected by

29% of respondents. This finding represents a change over

2009 when the split was fairly equal amongst the three

options (35% domestic, 33% regional and 32% global).

Whilst HR functions are most often centralised on a global

level, individual HR processes are most often managed on a

local level. Nearly all HR processes are most likely to be

managed locally, versus regionally or globally. Only stock

option management is just slightly more likely to be managed

on a global level than a local level.

Most organisations have a common HR information system

(HRIS). Amongst those organisations that have a common

HRIS (80% of all respondents), over a third (35%) say it is

managed at a global level; nearly as many (32%), though, say

their HRIS is managed at a domestic level. Least likely

amongst those that have a common HRIS is management at

the regional level (14% of all respondents).

research findings


who is transforming HR

After a dip in 2009, HR transformation appears to be on the

rise again with 85% of all respondents saying they are

considering, in the process of, or finished with HR

transformation. HR transformation activity remains

down from its highest (90% in 2008).

On a regional basis, organisations in the Americas

are slightly more likely than are their counterparts in

other regions to be engaged HR transformation. However,

survey results indicate activity is shifting by region.

The most significant change has been in been in the Europe/

Middle East/Africa (EMEA) region, which has seen an increase

in HR transformation activity: 87% of EMEA respondents say

they are engaged in HR transformation, up from a low in 2009

of 71%. On the other hand, the Asia Pacific region has

experienced a decline in HR transformation activity, from 93%

in 2008 to 81% in 2010. HR transformation activity in the

Americas is virtually unchanged at 89% of all respondents.

organisations

transforming HR

85%

Amongst those organisations that have chosen not to engage

in HR transformation, most often it is because they are

satisfied with their current organisation or solution (53%), HR

is not a priority (26%) or transformation is considered too

costly (24%). The order and magnitude of these reasons are

largely unchanged between 2009 and 2010, although cost was

significantly up in 2009 over 2008, and appears to be waning

in 2010. (Cost was selected as a reason not to transform by

0% in 2008, 40% in 2009, and 24% in 2010).

where organisations are in HR transformation

The highest percentage of respondents (40%)

have been transforming HR for one to two years,

and 64% have been transforming HR for a year or

more. Predictably, generally the larger the

company, the longer they have been

transforming HR.

organisations

with more than 1 year of

experience in

transforming HR

64%

HR transformation status

• HR transformation is on the rise again following a dip in 2009; 85% of all respondents say they are engaged in HR

transformation in some form, whether reengineering, outsourcing, shared services, or hybrid approach. Just over a third say

they have been engaged in HR transformation over a year.

• Whilst organisations in the Americas are still more likely to be transforming HR than are those in other regions, the most

significant year-over-year change has taken place in the Europe/Middle East/Africa (EMEA) region, with a 16-point increase in

organisations saying they are engaged in HR transformation in 2010 over 2009.

• Those that are transforming HR most often engage a hybrid approach (41%), combining internal reengineering, shared

services, and possibly outsourcing. Next most common is internal reengineering, with nearly a third engaging that strategy.

• Transformation strategies vary by region: organisations in the Americas are most likely to engage a hybrid approach; those in

the Asia Pacific region most often employ internal reengineering, and EMEA organisations are the most diverse, employing a

variety of approaches

• The reasons organisations engage in HR transformation has remained constant over years of research, the most common

being to reduce or better manage costs. However, there are variations by region: those in the Americas most often say their

focus is to align the organisation on common objectives and to free internal HR staff to focus on strategic issues; Asia Pacific-

based respondents most often say it is to add and/or improve service for line management and employees or to respond to

organisational changes; EMEA headquartered organisations most often say they are engaged in HR transformation to reduce/

better manage costs.

• Amongst those respondents who say they are not engaged in HR transformation, most say the reason is that they are satisfied

with their current organisation or strategy.

headlines

findings


research findings

[9]

figure 1: where organisations are in their transformation process, all

respondents

21%

57%

7%

15%Planning to transform

In transformation

Completed transformation

No plans to transform

75%

85%90%

81%85%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

% e

ng

ag

ed

in t

ran

sfo

rma

tio

n

figure 2: organisations engaged in HR transformation, 2006 – 2010

93%

83% 81%

2008 2009 2010

% e

ng

ag

ed

in t

ran

sfo

rma

tio

n

Asia Pacific

75%71%

87%

2008 2009 2010

% e

ng

ag

ed

in t

ran

sfo

rma

tio

n

EMEA

figure 3: organisations engaged in HR transformation, by region, 2008 – 2010

89% 87% 89%

2008 2009 2010

% e

ng

ag

ed

in t

ran

sfo

rma

tio

n

Americas

3%

15%

24%

26%

53%

Company policy

Company currently under re-organisation

Cost

HR is not a priority

Satisfied with current organisation/solution

% who select

figure 4: reasons organisations are not transforming HR, all respondents

24%

40%

22%

14%<1 year

1 – 2 years

3 – 4 years

5+ years

figure 5: how long organisations have been engaged in HR transformation,

all respondents

research findings


how organisations are transforming HR

Organisations are most often transforming HR through a

hybrid approach of outsourcing, centralised services and

internal reengineering (40% selected this option). Next most

common is internal reengineering (31%), followed by a

predominantly shared services approach (23%), then by a

predominantly outsourcing approach (6%).

This pattern is somewhat similar to the approach

organisations noted in our 2009 research, when, likely due to

the global economic recession, internal reengineering jumped

from 19% of all respondents to 33%. Whilst down slightly, to

31%, in 2010, that approach remains strong. At the same

time, outsourcing rose in 2009 over 2008, but is off again in

2010.

Transformation approaches vary somewhat by region.

Organisations in the Americas are the most likely to engage in

a hybrid approach (45%), whilst those in the Asia Pacific

region are most likely to engage in internal reengineering

(44%). Organisations headquartered in EMEA are much more

diverse in their approach, with nearly equal portions engaging

in hybrid (32%), internal reengineering (31%) and shared

services (29%) approaches. In all regions, a transformation

approach based predominantly on outsourcing is uncommon.

why organisations are transforming HR

The main reasons organisations transform HR have remained

fairly constant over the past several years, with reducing/

better managing costs the top reason (56% select this option

on 2010), as it has been for all but one year. (2008, when cost

reduction/management dropped to number three, appears to

have been an anomaly.) Other top reasons to transform HR

(also consistent across the years) are adding/improving

service for line managers and employees (52%), responding to

organisational changes (52%), aligning the organisation on

common objectives (51%), and freeing internal HR staff to

focus on strategic issues (51%).

Unlike in years past, this year’s results indicate some variation

in response by region. Respondents from organisations based

in the Americas most often say they are engaged in HR

transformation to align the organisation on common

objectives and to free internal HR staff to focus on strategic

issues (both are selected by 56% of respondents). Asia Pacific-

based respondents most often say they are engaged in HR

transformation to add and/or improve service for line

management and employees or to respond to organisational changes (both are selected by 65% of Asia Pacific

respondents). EMEA headquartered organisations most often

say they are engaged in HR transformation to reduce/better

manage costs (62% of EMEA respondents).

HR transformation status, continued

findings


research findings

[11]

40%

31%

23%

6%

figure 6: approaches organisations are taking to transform HR, all

respondents

40%

35%

44%

31%

33%

19%

23%

20%

30%

5%

12%

7%

2010

2009

2008

figure 7: approaches organisations are taking to transform HR, 2008 – 2010

32%

36%

45%

31%

44%

27%

29%

16%

23%

7%

4%

5%

EMEA

Asia

Pacific

Americas

Figure x: approaches organisations are taking to transform HR, by region

18%

25%

33%

33%

51%

52%

53%

56%

56%

To access external sources of talent, expertise or technology

To facilitate reporting

To concentrate resources on core business

To benefit from a new technology to empower line management

To add and/or improve service for line management and employees

To respond to organisational changes

To reduce cost or better manage the cost of internal processes

To free internal HR staff to focus on strategic issues

To align the organisation on common objectives

% who select

32%

42%

42%

48%

52%

55%

58%

65%

65%










% who select

9%

19%

28%

30%

42%

44%

47%

49%

62%










% who select

figure 8: reasons organisations engage in HR transformation, all respondents and by region

Hybrid

Internal reengineering

Predominantly shared services

Predominantly outsourcing

americas

all respondents

asia pacific

emea

17%

25%

33%

35%

51%

51%

52%

52%

56%










% who select

research findings


time and savings

HR transformation takes slightly longer than anticipated to

achieve, a result we have found throughout the seven years

we have conducted this research. Across all

respondents, those responsible for HR

transformation most often anticipate

transformation taking one to two years (42% of

respondents), whilst 32% actually achieve that

result. Another quarter (25%) expect

transformation to require three to four years, whilst 31%

actually take that amount of time; and only 10% anticipate

taking more than four years, whilst more than a quarter (27%)

actually require that amount of time. The remaining 23%

anticipate transformation taking a year or less; only 11%

actually achieve transformation in the timeframe.

Organisations in different regions tend to follow similar

patterns as the overall response, although Asia Pacific

organisations appear to be more aggressive in both

anticipated and actual transformation timing.

The most common reasons respondents cite for taking longer

than anticipated to achieve HR transformation include:

• Management/leadership/organisational changes impacted transformation progress and timing.

• Transformation is/was more complex than expected.

• Staff turnover impacts(ed) transformation progress and timing.

• The staff is/was too stretched to focus on transformation

• Competing priorities impacts(ed) transformation progress and timing.

As with time-to-transform results, organisations often miss

their cost savings expectations by a slim margin. A majority of

respondents (62%) anticipate savings of 6% – 25% (the

highest portion anticipating savings of 16% – 25%), but 57%

actually achieve those savings. Whilst 14% anticipate the

lowest level of savings (less than 5% savings), 20% say they

actually achieve savings in that range. On the other end of the

scale, however, virtually the same proportion of respondents

anticipate and achieve savings of more than 35% (8%

anticipate those savings; 7% achieve them).

Again here, whilst organisations in different

regions generally follow similar patterns, there

are regional differences. EMEA organisations

tend to be most aggressive in their planning, with

just over a third (35%) anticipating savings of

more than 25% (versus 19% and 14% of Asia

Pacific and Americas respondents, respectively,

anticipating this level of savings).

Interestingly, whilst a higher proportion of EMEA respondents

actually achieve savings of more than 25% (25% of EMEA

respondents say they achieve that level of savings, versus 20%

of Asia Pacific and 19% of Americas respondents), that means

EMEA respondents are generally underperforming their

expectations, whilst Americas and Asia Pacific respondents

are outperforming their expectations, even if only slightly.

HR transformation outcomes

• HR transformation takes slightly longer and generates slightly less savings than first anticipated, a finding that has remained

unchanged across seven years of research.

• Organisations cite management/leadership/organisational changes as the top reason for slower-than-expected results.

• Organisations realise the best results from HR transformation in organisational management areas, and the worst results in

leveraging HR staff into more strategic areas.

• On the whole, respondents do not appear terribly happy with their HR transformation performance overall. On a 5-point

scale, the highest performing area (adding and/or improving service for line management and employees) achieves only a

2.89 score.

• That said, organisations generally report performing better in areas that they deem important and less well in areas they

deem unimportant, so it appears focus and resourcing are being thoughtfully applied.

• The main hurdles to successful HR transformation remain unchanged over the years, with skills of existing HR staff perpetually

topping the list. In the 2010 research the next most common hurdle is underestimating the resources needed to transform.

headlines

findings

average number of

years to transform

2-3

average cost savings

16%-

25%


research findings

[13]

2%

4%

9%

19%

32%

42%

31%

25%

27%

10%

Actual

AnticipatedLess than 6 months

6 – 12 months

1 – 2 years

3 – 4 years

More than 4 years

4%

3%

3%

8%

5%

5%

21%

9%

19%

24%

16%

34%

29%

30%

45%

44%

41%

33%

38%

26%

20%

24%

29%

28%

8%

32%

13%

9%

EMEA

Asia Pacific

Americas

EMEA

Asia Pacific

Americas

Ac

tua

lA

nti

cip

ate

d

Less than 6 months

6 – 12 months

1 – 2 years

3 – 4 years

More than 4 years

figure 9: actual versus expected time to transform, all respondents

figure 10: actual versus expected time to transform , by region

20%

14%

30%

29%

27%

33%

16%

15%

5%

6%

1%

2%

1%Actual

Anticipated

Up to 5%

6% – 15%

16% – 25%

26% – 35%

36% – 45%

46% – 55%

More than 55%

20%

14%

21%

13%

9%

16%

28%

29%

32%

23%

45%

30%

27%

38%

28%

30%

27%

41%

23%

5%

12%

27%

5%

8%

2%

10%

7%

6%

9%

3%

2%

5%

3%

5%

EMEA

Asia Pacific

Americas

EMEA

Asia Pacific

Americas

Ac

tua

lA

nti

cip

ate

d

Up to 5%

6% – 15%

16% – 25%

26% – 35%

36% – 45%

46% – 55%

More than 55%

figure 11: actual versus expected cost savings resulting from HR transformation, all respondents

figure 12: actual versus expected cost savings resulting from HR transformation, by region

research findings


outcomes versus expectations

Similar to prior years, respondents report best results from

their HR transformation efforts in organisational management

areas, including aligning the organisation around common

objectives (79% of respondents say they exceed or meet

expectations in this area) and responding to organisational

changes (73% meet or exceed expectations in this area).

Respondents say they most often exceed expectations in

adding or improving service for

line management and employees;

22% of all respondents say they

have exceeded expectations in

that area.

On the other hand, respondents rate themselves worst at

leveraging HR transformation to free internal HR staff to focus

on strategic issues (46% say the fall below expectations in this

area) and benefiting from a new technology to empower line

management (42% say they fall below expectations in this

area); 40% of respondents also say they are failing to access

external sources of talent, expertise or technology.

Applying a 5-point scale to respondents’ performance (where

performance that is far below expectations=1, and

performance that far exceeds expectations=5), on the whole

respondents are not terribly happy with their performance.

The highest performing reported area, adding and/or

improving service for line management and employees,

achieves only 2.89 points on the 5-point scale. The

performance band is fairly narrow, though, as the lowest

performing area, freeing internal HR staff to focus on strategic

issues, scores 2.62 points on the 5-point scale.

That said, organisations appear to be doing a reasonably good

job of matching areas of importance (see the why

organisations are transforming section) to performance.

Generally, organisations are performing best in the areas that

they deem important, with the single exception being the

objective of freeing internal HR staff to focus on strategic

issues, which has the lowest reported performance of all key

performance areas.

HR transformation outcomes, continued

findings

best results in HR transformation

organisational management

worst results in HR transformation

freeing HR staff to focus on

strategic issues


research findings

[15]

11%

10%

9%

16%

17%

18%

22%

12%

8%

43%

48%

51%

53%

52%

51%

50%

61%

71%

46%

42%

40%

31%

31%

31%

29%

27%

21%










exceeds meets falls below

figure 13: performance versus expectations in key HR transformation performance areas, all respondents

A

importance

pe

rfo

rma

nce

figure 14: importance of and performance in key HR transformation performance areas

Performance area

Importance (% of respondents

selecting as

important)

Performance (how organisations

perform on a 5-point

scale)

To add and/or improve service for line management and employees 60% 2.89

To align the organisation on common objectives 59% 2.87

To reduce cost or better manage the cost of internal processes 63% 2.86

To facilitate reporting 29% 2.86

To respond to organisational changes 59% 2.85

To concentrate resources on core business 39% 2.83

To access external sources of talent, expertise or technology 19% 2.66

To benefit from a new technology to empower line management 38% 2.63

To free internal HR staff to focus on strategic issues 59% 2.62

Key

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

B C D

E F

G

H

I

research findings


hurdles to HR transformation

Across all seven years we’ve been conducting this research,

the main hurdles to HR transformation have remained

unchanged, with skills of existing HR staff at the top of the list

every year. Other top hurdles continue to include

underestimation of resources needed (52% selected this

hurdle), lack of adequate technology (41% selected this

hurdle), and internal bureaucracy (40% selected this hurdle).

In 2009, we noted a reversal of a trend that we had seen in

prior years: for the first time it appeared that some hurdles

were declining. In 2008 we noted that 7 of the 10 identified

hurdles received higher responses between 2006 and 2008. In

2009, all but one (opposition from worker’s councils – and

that had only a very slight increase) experienced a decrease

(meaning fewer respondents selected almost every hurdle in

2009 versus what they noted in prior years). The 2010 results

do not carry forward that trend; instead, we see a mixed bag,

with some hurdles declining whilst others are increasing.

Overall, the proportion of respondents who selected skills of

existing HR staff is virtually unchanged (62% in 2010; 63% in

2009). Underestimation of resources needed grew the most,

with 52% selecting this hurdle in 2010 versus 40% in 2009.

Difficulty in dealing with national/cultural differences grew by

9 percentage points, from 20% in 2009 to 29% in 2010.

Opposition from workers’ councils, never selected by many

respondents from the start, dropped the most, from 13% in

2009 to 6% in 2010. Internal bureaucracy dropped by 6

points, from 46% in 2009 to 40% in 2010.

Regional differences in hurdles to HR transformation are fairly

limited, with all three regions selecting the same two top

hurdles: skills of existing HR staff as the number one (55% of

Americas respondents; 84% of Asia Pacific respondents; 64%

of EMEA respondents), and underestimation of the resources

needed as number two (49% of Americas respondents; 56% of

Asia Pacific respondents; 58% of EMEA respondents).

HR transformation outcomes, continued

findings


research findings

[17]

6%

15%

20%

24%

29%

36%

40%

41%

52%

62%

13%

15%

17%

23%

20%

36%

46%

40%

40%

63%

Opposition from workers councils

Regulatory constraints

Difficulty in building a justifiable business case

Lack of senior management support

Difficulty in dealing with national/cultural differences

Lack of employee and business line buy-in

Internal bureaucracy

Lack of adequate technology

Underestimation of the resources needed

Skills of existing HR staff

% who select

2009

2010

figure 15: importance of and performance in key HR transformation performance areas, all respondents, 2009 –2010

3%

9%

22%

25%

30%

32%

39%

41%

58%

64%

7%

14%

19%

25%

26%

41%

42%

41%

49%

55%

4%

20%

24%

16%

28%

36%

40%

40%

56%

84%

Opposition from workers councils

Regulatory constraints

Difficulty in building a justifiable business case

Lack of senior management support

Difficulty in dealing with national/cultural differences

Lack of employee and business line buy-in

Internal bureaucracy

Lack of adequate technology

Underestimation of the resources needed

Skills of existing HR staff

% who select

Americas Asia Pacific EMEA

figure 16: importance of and performance in key HR transformation performance areas, all respondents, by region

research findings


outsourcing and shared services

• Across the last three years, the proportion of respondents who say they are currently outsourcing HR services or plan to

outsource them has declined, from 65% (in 2008) to 54% (in 2010).

• Whilst outsourcing remains more common in organisations in the Americas than in other regions, American organisations

have experienced the greatest decline in percentage who say they are outsourcing or plan to outsource HR processes.

• Although HR outsourcing is down as a whole, a few individual processes experienced an increase in outsourcing between 2009

and 2010; the highest increase is in assessment/performance appraisal, rising from 19% in 2009 to 26% of respondents in

2010 saying they are/are considering outsourcing. Payroll also saw an increase, from 80% in 2009 to 84% in 2010.

• The greatest declines were in leave administration (52% in 2009; 34% in 2010) and recruitment/selection (47% in 2009; 37% in

2010).

• Health and welfare benefits show the greatest variation amongst regions, with 82% of Asia Pacific organisations outsourcing/

considering outsourcing the process, versus Americas organisations (62% of respondents) and EMEA orgnisations (50% of

respondents). • Nearly three quarters (73%) of all respondents say they develop and/or use their own process to identify and select their

provider(s); the last three years has seen a decline in the use of consultants or sourcing advisors, from 49% in 2008 to 36% in

2010.

• The issuing of both requests for information (RFIs) and request for proposals (RFPs) is down in 2010 over 2009 (RFIs: 65% in

2009 to 51% in 2010; RFPs: 76% in 2009 to 65% in 2010).

• The top outsourcing provider selection criterion is proven ability to meet service levels, followed by functional coverage and

expertise, then price followed by multi-country capabilities. Amongst the three regions, all rank the same criteria in the top

three, although in different orders. • Organisations most often budget less than US$1M annually for HR outsourcing (41% of all respondents), followed by US$1M –

US$10M (30% of all respondents).

• Analysis of year-over-year HR outsourcing budgets indicates growth at both ends of the budget scale, with an expanding

proportion budgeting either less than US$1M or more than US$11M.

• Nearly half of all respondents (48%) say they expect to increase HR outsourcing budgets over the next three years, most often

by up to 24%. That proportion of respondents shows an increase over 2009, when it was 42%, but still does not match 2008’s

55%.

• In spite of the fact that a smaller percentage say they are currently outsourcing or anticipate outsourcing HR services, over the

last two years we have seen a significant decline in the proportion of respondents who say they anticipate their HR

outsourcing budgets to decrease, coupled with a significant increase in the proportion of organisations that anticipate their

budgets to stay the same.

• Just about two-thirds of all respondents (66%) say they manage one or more HR process(es) through a shared services model,

a proportion that is essentially unchanged from 2009’s 68%.

headlines


research findings

[19]

year all americas asia pacific emea

2008 % outsourcing HR

processes 65% 83% 33% 60%


processes 59% 64% 56% 56%


processes 54% 60% 42% 54%

figure 17: outsourcing declining, all respondents and by region

outsourcing practices

Across the past three years, the proportion of respondents

who say they are currently outsourcing or considering

outsourcing HR processes has slowly declined, from 65% in

2008 to 59% in 2009, and 54% in 2010. These declines in

outsourcing do not appear to be impacted by organisation

size; various employee sizes experienced growth whilst others

experienced decline, in no clear pattern.

HR outsourcing remains more common in the Americas (60%

of respondents say they outsource or plan to outsource HR

processes) than in either EMEA (54% of respondents) or Asia

Pacific (42% of all respondents). However, HR outsourcing has

predominantly experienced a decline across all regions in

recent years:

• The Americas has seen a precipitous and steady decline

from 83% saying they are/are considering outsourcing in

2008 to 60% in 2010;

• Asia Pacific experienced a sharp increase in 2009 over

2008, from 33% to 56% outsourcing/considering

outsourcing, but then a fairly steep decline to 42% in

2010;

• EMEA has seen a steady but very slow decline from 60%

saying they are/are considering outsourcing in 2008 to

56% in 2009, and 54% in 2010.

findings

outsourcing and shared services, continued

research findings


outsourcing practices, continued

Transactional processes are more likely to be outsourced,

whilst strategic processes are more often retained in house, a

finding that has been consistent across all years we have

conducted this research. With HR outsourcing as a whole

down, a few individual processes experienced an increase in

outsourcing between 2009 and 2010. The highest increase in

outsourcing is in assessment/performance appraisal; although

still uncommon, it rose from 19% in 2009 to 26% of

respondents in 2010 saying they are/are considering

outsourcing. Payroll, always the most commonly outsourced

HR process, also saw an increase, from 80% in 2009 to 84% in

2010.

Leave administration saw the greatest decline, falling from

52% in 2009 to 34% in 2010. Recruitment/selection also saw a

decline, down from 47% in 2009 from 37% in 2010.

Organisations in all regions are most likely to outsource/

consider outsourcing payroll, and least likely to outsource/

consider outsourcing the entire HR function. Health and

welfare benefits show the greatest variation amongst regions,

with 82% of Asia Pacific organisations outsourcing/

considering outsourcing the process, versus Americas

organisations (62% of respondents) and EMEA orgnisations

(50% of respondents). EMEA organisations are more likely to

outsource/consider outsourcing expatriate and relocation

administration (62% of respondents) than are their

counterparts in the other regions (55% for Asia Pacific

organisations; 35% for Americas organisations). And, Asia

Pacific respondents are more likely to outsource/consider

outsourcing performance appraisal (42% of respondents) than

are their colleagues in EMEA (34% of respondents) and the

Americas (14% of respondents).

provider selection

internal and external resources

Nearly three quarters (73%) of all respondents say they

develop and/or use your own process to identify and select

their provider(s), down from 2009’s 87%. (It appears now that

2009, during which there was a significant jump over 2008’s

70% figure, may have been an anomaly.)These numbers do

not vary significantly by region, although organisations in

EMEA are more likely to develop and/or use your own process

to identify and select their provider(s) than are their

counterparts in other regions (78% for EMEA; 75% for Asia

Pacific; 70% for Americas).

The last three years has seen a decline in the use of

consultants or sourcing advisors. A significantly smaller

percentage of respondents in 2010 say they engage a

consultant or sourcing advisor than did in 2009 – down to

36% from 51% in 2009 (and a nearly equal 49% in 2008).

There is very little difference across regions in the use of

consultants and sourcing advisors; 38% of Americas

respondents, 42% of Asia Pacific respondents, and 35% of

EMEA respondents say they use consultants and sourcing

advisors.

RFIs and RFPs

Just over half of companies (51%) issue requests for

information (RFIs) as a part of their provider selection

process, down from 2009’s 65% and just about the same as

2008. Organisations in EMEA and the Americas are more likely

to issue RFIs (56% and 51% respectively) than are their Asia

Pacific counterparts (42% of respondents).

As we have found over time, the issuing of requests for

proposals (RFPs) is more common than the issuing of RFIs,

with 65% of all respondents saying they do so. Here, too, the

proportion is down from 2009, when 76% of all respondents

indicated they issued RFPs. Again here, organisations in EMEA

and the Americas are more likely to issue RFIs (68% of

respondents from each region) than are their Asia Pacific

counterparts (42% of respondents).


findings

year

organisations that develop/use their own process to identify/select provider(s)

organisations that engage consultants/

advisors

organisations that issue RFIs

organisations that issue RFPs

2009 87% 51% 65% 76%

2010 73% 36% 51% 65%

figure 18: provider selection trends


research findings

[21]

5%

4%

7%

10%

15%

24%

22%

14%

30%

30%

36%

47%

55%

61%

2%

9%

6%

10%

11%

10%

15%

23%

12%

18%

15%

13%

13%

23%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Entire HR function

Employee communications

Career & succession planning

Compensation

Assessment/performance appraisal

Leave

Recruitment/selection

Training/development

Stock options administration

Expatriate and relocation

HRIS

Health & welfare benefits

Pensions administration

Payroll

% who select

Currently

Outsource

Plan to

Outsource

figure 19: outsourcing practices by process, 2008 – 2010

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Entire HR function



Compensation


Leave




Expatriate and relocation administration

HRIS



Payroll

% who select

Americas

Asia Pacific

EMEA

figure 20: currently outsourcing/planning to outsource by process, by region

research findings


provider selection, continued

provider selection criteria

The top four provider selection criteria remain unchanged

over the previous four years, although, as we noted last year,

they regularly change positions. In 2010, the top provider

selection criterion is proven ability to meet service levels,

followed by functional coverage and expertise (these two

were in the reverse positions in 2009), then price followed by

multi-country capabilities (each of which were in the same

position in 2009). The only notable change between 2009 and

2010 is that size and market position has moved up in

importance; whilst still not in the top of the list, that criterion

moved from thirteenth position in 2009 to ninth in 2010.

Amongst the three regions, all rank the same criteria in the

top three, although in different orders. The Americas and Asia

Pacific respondents rank the same top three as the overall

rankings: proven ability to meet service levels ranks first,

functional coverage and expertise ranks second, and price

ranks third. EMEA respondents, however, rank price at the

top, followed by functional coverage and expertise, then

proven ability to meet service levels. Other significant

variances amongst the three regions are that respondents in

the Americas and EMEA rank size and market position in the

middle of the criteria set (eighth and seventh respectively)

whilst Asia Pacific respondents rank it near the bottom,

thirteenth. Likewise, Asia Pacific and EMEA respondents rank

cultural match in the middle of the criteria set (sixth and

eighth respectively), whilst Americas respondents rank it

closer to the bottom, in the twelfth position.


findings


research findings

[23]

CRITERION 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

Proven ability to meet service levels 1 2 4 1 2

Functional coverage and expertise 2 1 3 2 1

Price 3 3 1 3 4

Multi-country capabilities 4 4 2 4 3

References/reputation 5 6 5 5 6

Specialisation in the relevant functions 6 5 8 7 7

Financial viability 7 9 6 9 12

Guaranteed cost savings 8 7 7 6 5

Size and market position 9 13 11 12 11

Cultural match 10 8 12 8 9

Flexible contract terms 11 10 9 10 8

Existing relationship 12 11 10 14 13

Unique provider (consulting, implementation, processing) 13 12 14 13 10

One stop shop (functions other than HR) 14 14 13 11 14

CRITERION Americas Asia Pacific EMEA

Proven ability to meet service levels 1 1 3

Functional coverage and expertise 2 2 2

Price 3 3 1

Multi-country capabilities 4 8 4

References/reputation 5 4 5

Specialisation in the relevant functions 6 7 11

Financial viability 7 12 9

Guaranteed cost savings 10 5 6

Size and market position 8 13 7

Cultural match 12 6 8

Flexible contract terms 9 11 10

Existing relationship 11 14 13

Unique provider (consulting, implementation, processing) 13 10 14

One stop shop (functions other than HR) 14 9 12

figure 21: provider selection criteria ranking, all respondents

figure 22: provider selection criteria ranking, by region

research findings


budgeting for HR outsourcing

Organisations most often budget less than US$1M annually

for HR outsourcing (41% of all respondents), followed by

US$1M – US$10M (30% of all respondents). Another 13%

budget US$11M – US$20M annually, and the remaining 16%

budget US$21M or more annually.

Predictably, annual budgets generally correlate to

organisation size, with organisations with fewer employees

budgeting less than those with more employees;

organisations with 25,000+ employees make up virtually all of

the respondents who say they budget US$21M or more

annually.

Analysis of year-over-year HR outsourcing budgets indicates

growth at both ends of the budget scale, with an expanding

proportion budgeting either less than US$1M or more than

US$11M. (Employee sizes within our sample have remained

fairly similar over time.)

Organisations in the Americas are likely to budget on the

lower end of the scale when compared to their counterparts

in other regions, with nearly half (47%) saying their HR

outsourcing budget is less than US$1M.

Nearly half of all respondents (48%) say they expect to

increase HR outsourcing budgets over the next three years.

That percentage shows an increase over 2009, when it was

42%, but still does not match 2008’s 55%.

Most often, organisations say they expect budgets to increase

by 10% – 24% (20% of all respondents); 17% say they

anticipate an increase of less than 10%, and another 11%

expect their HR outsourcing budgets to increase by more than

25%. Just over a third, 35%, anticipate their HR outsourcing

budgets to stay the same. The remainder of respondents

anticipate a decrease, most often of less than 10% (10% of all

respondents), followed by a decrease of 10% – 24% (5% of

respondents) and a decrease of 25% – 50% (2% of all

respondents).

In spite of the fact that a smaller percentage say they are

currently outsourcing or anticipate outsourcing HR services

(see the outsourcing practices section), over the last two

years, we have seen a significant decline in the proportion of

respondents who say they anticipate their HR outsourcing

budgets to decrease, coupled with a significant increase in the

proportion of organisations that anticipate their budgets to

stay the same.

EMEA organisations are more likely than their counterparts in

other regions to anticipate an increase in their HR outsourcing

budget, with 56% saying they expect an increase, versus 46%

and 45%, respectively, for Asia Pacific and Americas

organisations. On the other hand, organisations in the

Americas, where HR outsourcing is generally more common

and more entrenched, are least likely to expect a decrease in

budget (10% for Americas organisations; 23% for Asia Pacific

organisations; 17% for EMEA organisations).


findings

2008 2009 2010

organisations that expect to

increase their HR

outsourcing budgets 55% 42% 48%

figure 23: organisations intending to increase annual HR outsourcing budgets, by year


research findings

[25]

figure 24: HR outsourcing annual budgets, all respondents

figure 26: HR outsourcing annual budgets, 2008 – 2010

figure 25: HR outsourcing annual budgets 2010, by region

48%

42%

55%

58%

54%

35%

41%

13%

12%

14%

17%

16%

32%

30%

32%

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

Increase

Stay the same

Decrease

figure 27: anticipated change in HR outsourcing annual budgets, all respondents

figure 29: anticipated change in HR outsourcing annual budgets, 2006 – 2010

56%

46%

45%

27%

31%

45%

17%

23%

10%

EMEA

Asia

Pacific

Americas

Increase

Stay the same

Decrease

figure 28: anticipated change in HR outsourcing annual budgets, by region

41%

30%

13%

16% Less than $1 M

$1 M – $10 M

$11 M – $20 M

>$20 M36%

38%

47%

36%

31%

23%

10%

15%

17%

18%

15%

13%

EMEA

Asia

Pacific

Americas Less than $1 M

$1 M – $10 M

$11 M – $20 M

>$20 M

41%

38%

27%

30%

35%

51%

13%

16%

6%

16%

11%

16%

2010

2009

2008 Less than $1 M

$1 M – $10 M

$11 M – $20 M

>$20 M

10%

17%

5%

20%

2%

6% 5%

35%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Decrease

Stay the

same

Increase

% who select

+/- by < 10%

+/- by 10% – 24%

+/- by 25% – 50%

+/- by > 50%

Stay the same

research findings


shared services

Just about two-thirds of all respondents (66%) say they

manage one or more HR processes through a shared services

model. (This proportion is essentially unchanged from 2009’s

68%.)

As with outsourcing, organisations are more likely to manage

transactional processes – such as payroll and HR information

systems (HRIS) – in a shared services environment than they

are strategic processes. As such, processes like career/

succession planning and assessment/performance appraisal

are considerably less likely to be managed through a shared

services model. There have been no notable differences, by

process, in likelihood to manage processes in a shared

services model across the years of the research: whilst we

may find that individual processes are more or less likely to

managed through shared services year-over-year, those

processes generally rank in the same place within the overall

list of HR processes.

Respondents from the Americas are more likely than are their

counterparts in other regions to manage at least one HR

process through a shared services model (71% of

Americas respondents versus 56% of Asia Pacific

respondents and 63% of EMEA respondents). That

represents a change from last year, as well as a

significant drop for Asia Pacific respondents, when

74% of Asia Pacific respondents said they managed

or more HR processes through a shared services

centre.


findings

organisations

using a shared

services model

66%


research findings

[27]

year americas asia pacific emea

2009 % engaging shared services model for

HR processes

67% 74% 65%

2010 % engaging shared services model for

HR processes

71% 56% 63%

figure 30: outsourcing declining, all respondents and by region

27%

29%

33%

35%

37%

39%

40%

41%

45%

46%

47%

47%

55%

55%


Entire HR function





Compensation

Leave





HRIS

Payroll

% who select

figure 31: HR shared services, by process, all respondents

research findings


centralisation of the HR function

The HR function is most often centralised at a global level,

with 42% of all respondents selecting that option, versus

domestic and regional centralisation, each selected by 29% of

respondents.

Headquarters location appears to have some impact over

where the HR function is centralised. Respondents in the

Americas are most likely to centralise at a global level (45% of

respondents), followed by a domestic level (31% of all

respondents), then a regional level (24%). EMEA respondents

follow the same pattern, but in different proportions (42% at

a global level; 40% at a regional level; 19% at a domestic

level). Asia Pacific respondents, on the other hand, are most

likely to centralise the HR function on a domestic level (46% of

respondents) followed by a global level (31% of respondents),

then a regional level (23% of respondents).

Centralisation of HR process management

Whilst HR functions are most often centralised on a global

level (as noted above), individual HR processes are most often

managed on a local level; all HR processes are most likely to

be managed on a local level, with the exception of stock

option management, which is just slightly more likely to be

managed on a global level.

There are no significant differences in centralisation of HR

process management by region, either versus the overall

figures or amongst regions.

Common HRIS

A majority of organisations (80%) have a common HR

information system (HRIS). Amongst those organisations that

have a common HRIS, over a third (35%) say it is managed at a

global level; nearly as many (32%), though, say their HRIS is

managed at a domestic level. Least likely amongst those that

have a common HRIS is management at the regional level

(13% of all respondents). The remaining 20% of respondents

do not have a common HRIS.

Asia Pacific organisations are slightly more likely than are their

counterparts in other regions to have a common HRIS (87% of

Asia Pacific respondents; 79% of Americas respondents; 82%

of EMEA respondents). Asia Pacific respondents are also much

more likely to centralise their HRIS at a domestic level than

are their counterparts. At the same time, EMEA organisations

are much more likely to centralise their HRIS at a global level.

HR management practices

• The HR function is most often centralised at a global level (42% of all respondents), versus domestic (29%) or regional (29%)

centralisation. Headquarters location appears to have some impact over where the HR function is centralised, with American

and EMEA respondents most likely to centralise at a global level, and Asia Pacific respondents are most likely to centralise on

a domestic level.

• Whilst HR functions are most often centralised on a global level (as noted above), individual HR processes are most often

managed on a local level. The only process not most likely to be managed on a local basis is stock option management, which

is just slightly more likely to be managed on a global level.

• A majority of organisations (80%) have a common HR information system (HRIS). Of those organisations, over a third say it is

managed at a global level; nearly as many say it is managed at a domestic level, and 14% say it is managed at the regional

level. The remaining 20% of respondents do not have a common HRIS.

headlines

findings

29%

29%

42%

19%

46%

31%

40%

23%

24%

42%

31%

45%

EMEA

Asia Pacific

Americas

Domestic level Regional level Global level

figure 32: centralisation of the HR function, all respondents figure 33: centralisation of the HR function, by region

Domestic level Regional level Global level


research findings

[29]

53%

43%

57%

69%

64%

68%

45%

62%

42%

51%

45%

50%

50%

22%

13%

26%

18%

21%

19%

20%

26%

23%

23%

23%

17%

20%

24%

44%

18%

13%

15%

14%

35%

12%

35%

27%

33%

33%

30%





Payroll

Leave

HRIS




Compensation



Locally

Regionally

Globally

figure 34: centralisation of the HR process management by process, all respondents

32% 13% 35%

20%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No

common

HRIS

Common

HRIS

% who select

Domestic level

Regional level

Global level

No common HRIS

26% 11% 45%

18%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No

common

HRIS

Common

HRIS

% who select

Domestic level

Regional level

Global level

No common HRIS

50% 4% 33%

13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No

common

HRIS

Common

HRIS

% who select

Domestic level

Regional level

Global level

No common HRIS

29% 18% 32%

21%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

No

common

HRIS

Common

HRIS

% who select

Domestic level

Regional level

Global level

No common HRIS

figure 35: centralisation of HRIS, all respondents, and by region

americas

all respondents

asia pacific

emea

about the survey participants


total survey

respondents

225

47%

15%

38%

Americas

Asia Pacific

Europe, Middle East, Africa

(EMEA)

28%

13%

9%23%

15%

12% 1 country

2-4 countries

5-9 countries

10-49 countries

50-99 countries

100+ countries

27%

17%

7%15%

11%

13%

10%

Less than $50 M

$50 M – $499 M

$500 M – $999 M

$1 B – $5 B

$6 B – $10 B

$11 B – $50 B

More than $50 B

27%

13%

17%

10%

13%

11%

9% Fewer than 500

500 – 2,999

3,000 – 9,999

10,000 – 24,999

25,000 – 49,999

50,000 – 99,999

100000+

figure 36: headquarters location

figure 37: breadth of operation

figure 38: revenues (US$)

figure 39: number of employees



[31]

CRITERION %

Consulting/Professional/Legal Services 20%

IT, Technology, Software 13%

Manufacturing 11%

Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 9%

Health Care/Health Sciences/Pharmaceuticals 8%

Other services 6%

Public Sector/Nonprofit/Education 6%

Consumer Goods, Electronics 5%

Retail trade 4%

Media/Entertainment 3%

Telecommunications 3%

Construction/Engineering 2%

Travel & entertainment/Hospitality 2%

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 1%

Mining & metals 1%

Transportation, storage and delivery 1%

Automotive sales & service 1%

Aerospace/Aviation 0.5%

Biotech/Medical Equipment/Pharmaceuticals 0.5%

Chemicals 0.5%

Utilities/Power, Oil, Energy, & Water 0.5%

figure 40: industry

0.5%

1%

1%

2%

3%

3%

3%

3%

5%

15%

18%

46%

Compliance

Other, unspecified

HR Ooperations

Procurement/Strategic Sourcing

Finance and Treasury

Consultant

Executive management

HR IT

General management

HR Shared Services

Strategic Planning

HR General

% who select

1%

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

4%

6%

8%

12%

26%

33%

COO

Chief Administrative Officer

Senior manager

CHRO

Consultant

Other, unspecified

Chairman/CEO

General Manager

President/Managing Director

Owner/Principal/Partner

If other, please specify

Manager

Vice President/Director

% who select

figure 41: function

figure 42: job title

about the research sponsors


ADP

Who We Are

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (Nasdaq: ADP), with nearly

$9 billion in revenue and about 550,000 clients, is one of the

world’s largest providers of business outsourcing solutions.

Leveraging over 60 years of experience, ADP offers a wide

range of HR, payroll, tax and benefits administration

solutions from a single source. ADP’s easy-to-use solutions

for employers provide superior value to companies of all

types and sizes. ADP is also a leading provider of integrated

computing solutions to auto, truck, motorcycle, marine and

recreational vehicle dealers throughout the world.

What We Do

ADP Employer Services, part of ADP, Inc., serves clients in

more than 60 countries worldwide. As a leading provider of

HR services, ADP Employer Services’ offerings – from basic

payroll processing to being your payroll and personnel

administration department – are fully compliant with

languages, currencies, social regulations, and adapt

seamlessly to companies’ structural and business needs.

With its suite of HRO solutions, ADP is well positioned to

serve the needs of multinational companies that are looking

for outsourcing services from one source.

More Information

Additional information on ADP at: www.adp.com.

SharedXpertise

Who We Are

SharedXpertise is a leading provider of forums, media and

summits that develop professional practices in corporate

responsibility, HR and financial management. SharedXpertise’s

goal is to provide its readers, attendees and members with

data, industry trends, best practices and networking

opportunities to excel in their professional endeavors, and to

help expand knowledge, improve business practices and foster

the responsible globalization of business.

What We Do

SharedXpertise produces a variety of strategic, highly

interactive conferences and webinars for executives, managers

and practitioners in the HR and financial services

transformation and process outsourcing, and corporate

responsibility communities.

Through its research programs, SharedXpertise acts to improve

the practice of HR, financial management and corporate

responsibility by researching, overseeing and accelerating the

development and adoption of effective industry standards and

practices. As part of this process, the SharedXpertise gathers

broad-based input from across industries and works to develop

lasting industry consensus and to arrive at conclusions that

balance the various commercial interests of all participants.

More Information

To learn more, please visit www.sharedxpertise.com.

notes



[31]

CRITERION % Consulting/Professional/Legal Services 20% IT, Technology, Software 13% Manufacturing 11% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate 9% Health Care/Health Sciences/Pharmaceuticals 8% Other services 6% Public Sector/Nonprofit/Education 6% Consumer Goods, Electronics 5% Retail trade 4% Media/Entertainment 3% Telecommunications 3% Construction/Engineering 2% Travel & entertainment/Hospitality 2% Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing 1% Mining & metals 1% Transportation, storage and delivery 1% Automotive sales & service 1% Aerospace/Aviation 0.5% Biotech/Medical Equipment/Pharmaceuticals 0.5% Chemicals 0.5% Utilities/Power, Oil, Energy, & Water 0.5%

figure 40: industry

0.5%

1%

1%

2%

3%

3%

3%

3%

5%

15%

18%

46%

Compliance

Other, unspecified

HR Ooperations

Procurement/Strategic Sourcing

Finance and Treasury

Consultant

Executive management

HR IT

General management

HR Shared Services

Strategic Planning

HR General

% who select

1%1%1%1%2%2%

3%4%

6%8%

12%26%

33%

COOChief Administrative Officer

Senior managerCHRO

ConsultantOther, unspecified

Chairman/CEOGeneral Manager

President/Managing DirectorOwner/Principal/Partner

If other, please specifyManager

Vice President/Director

% who select

figure 41: function

figure 42: job title

[33]

notesabout the research sponsors


ADP

Who We Are

Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (Nasdaq: ADP), with nearly $9 billion in revenue and about 550,000 clients, is one of the world’s largest providers of business outsourcing solutions. Leveraging over 60 years of experience, ADP offers a wide range of HR, payroll, tax and benefits administration solutions from a single source. ADP’s easy-to-use solutions for employers provide superior value to companies of all types and sizes. ADP is also a leading provider of integrated computing solutions to auto, truck, motorcycle, marine and recreational vehicle dealers throughout the world.

What We Do

ADP Employer Services, part of ADP, Inc., serves clients in more than 60 countries worldwide. As a leading provider of HR services, ADP Employer Services’ offerings – from basic payroll processing to being your payroll and personnel administration department – are fully compliant with languages, currencies, social regulations, and adapt seamlessly to companies’ structural and business needs. With its suite of HRO solutions, ADP is well positioned to serve the needs of multinational companies that are looking for outsourcing services from one source.

More Information

Additional information on ADP at: www.adp.com.

SharedXpertise

Who We Are

SharedXpertise is a leading provider of forums, media and summits that develop professional practices in corporate responsibility, HR and financial management. SharedXpertise’s goal is to provide its readers, attendees and members with data, industry trends, best practices and networking opportunities to excel in their professional endeavors, and to help expand knowledge, improve business practices and foster the responsible globalization of business.

What We Do

SharedXpertise produces a variety of strategic, highly interactive conferences and webinars for executives, managers and practitioners in the HR and financial services transformation and process outsourcing, and corporate responsibility communities.

Through its research programs, SharedXpertise acts to improve the practice of HR, financial management and corporate responsibility by researching, overseeing and accelerating the development and adoption of effective industry standards and practices. As part of this process, the SharedXpertise gathers broad-based input from across industries and works to develop lasting industry consensus and to arrive at conclusions that balance the various commercial interests of all participants.

More Information

To learn more, please visit www.sharedxpertise.com.

[34]

Documents

Global HR 2010 Transformation - ADP · Global HR 2010 Transformation ... What do you think we chose for ADP, ... assessment/performance appraisal, which, although